Obama is trying to force the United States into a "green" technology that they can't afford and don't want. Wind power is 17 cents compared to 5 cents for coal. The artificial price increase is essentially an Obama Tax. At the present time, this tax on Americans from Obama's de facto moratorium is about a dollar a gallon.
Even more frustrating for many is the scant attention that the media has given the story. Less than 1% of all news coverage connects the price increases to Obama's moratorium. It seems the media is more interested in connecting rising gas prices to oil speculators, greedy oil companies, and unrest in Egypt. The reality is none of these issues would be substantially relevant to the price of gas at the pump if the US developed its own fossil fuels. Alaska alone has enough oil for 100 years.
The Obama administration has consistently blocked production and drilling in the United States at every turn. Only 6 permits have been approved, and past projects that were in progress when Obama took office have been suspended. The Obama administration will not allow Americans to develop their own resources and wants to perpetuate the dependence on foreign oil.
The windmill on the capital to generate energy from the hot air in Congress was a nice touch!
Thank you Congressman Don Young for your work on HR 1231! I wonder how Senator Murkowski will vote when it reaches the Senate?
Friday, May 13, 2011
Obama Administrations Agenda is No Work for the Working Man
Of course this blogger has always been a fan of Don Young, of Alaska. But he has been quiet of late. In fact, he has been so quiet there have been no small shortage of discussions about his age and his health.
This week, he came back with a roar! And what a roar it was! Here he confronts the EPA on their true Agenda: to kill capitalism. In fact, when it came time for Mrs. Stoner, EPA representative to respond, she was gone. She fled the hearing. Mrs. Stoner knew she couldn't respond, because she knew he was right!
Alaskans know that the EPA's agenda has been to shut down all economic activity in the state. They are constantly looking at ways to shut down energy production, mining, and any other activity that would help Alaskans be independent. We are on to them.
Thank you Don Young!
This week, he came back with a roar! And what a roar it was! Here he confronts the EPA on their true Agenda: to kill capitalism. In fact, when it came time for Mrs. Stoner, EPA representative to respond, she was gone. She fled the hearing. Mrs. Stoner knew she couldn't respond, because she knew he was right!
Alaskans know that the EPA's agenda has been to shut down all economic activity in the state. They are constantly looking at ways to shut down energy production, mining, and any other activity that would help Alaskans be independent. We are on to them.
Thank you Don Young!
Misogynistic Mathews: 1969 in a 2011 World
Newsbusted recently exposed the tactics used by Chris Mathews in discussing Newt Gingrich. in which a transcript of the discussion, as well as the video clip is displayed.
It is pretty clear that Mr. Mathews lives in 1969 and not 2011. He lives in a world where it is acceptable to engage in misogynistic tactics in interrogating subjects, rather than interviews. He lives in a world where Michigan is primarily black and Texas is primarily white. He lives in 1969.
Mr. Mathews fighting in the wrong field, and I don’t know why anyone would let him take them there. Even the blacks are fleeing Detroit in droves. They are heading to places all over the US where there is still freedom, and the data shows this. Why is Michigan being characterized as “black?” THAT is ignorant and racist. And who is the person who is the new “spokesman” for Detroit? Eminem? Isn’t he a white guy who cleans out closets and dubs his videos in Arabic?
The problem is that once again, MSBC engages in misogyny by brow beating a woman. The likes of Larry O’Donnell and Chris Mathews flourish in browbeating women of all color. I don’t know the woman in this clip, or why she was on this show, but she clearly has never had to push back in Illinois politics. Here is how the “push back” should have gone.
Is not the mere suggestion that the comparison of Michigan versus Texas implied racism on Chris Mathew’s part? Yes, Chris Mathews is a racist. As a Hispanic, I was very offended by Mathews remarks. Mathews clearly was attempting to slam the millions of Hispanics in Texas by implying they were inferior to the Arabs who have taken over in Michigan. I was furious that Chris Mathews would use antiquated stereotypes of these two regions to imply Newt Gingrich is a racist, attempt to frame the When was the last time Chris Mathews was in Texas? Or Michigan? How antiquated of MATHEWS to suggest that this is about “Black v White.” Does he think this is 1969 or 2011?
The battle ground coming before our nation is not black versus white. Both populations are in decline and are no longer the dominant cultural force. The dominant cultural force in Michigan is Arabic, not black or white. The dominant cultural force in Texas is Hispanic, not black or white. Has Chris Mathews left his studio since 1969? Black versus White? That is like talking about the battle of Vicksberg in discussing our battle strategy in Afghanistan. It is a fundamentally outdated way of examining the conflicts on the streets of America today. The battle today in the US is more like the battle that Queen Isabella fought in her nation. Both blacks and whites are fighting against the entrenchment of Sharia law in our nation.
Are the rural black Christian communities in Texas, the Hispanics in Texas somehow less valuable that the Arab communities in Detroit? Who is the racist? Who is the misogynist? It isn’t Newt Gingrich.
It is pretty clear that Mr. Mathews lives in 1969 and not 2011. He lives in a world where it is acceptable to engage in misogynistic tactics in interrogating subjects, rather than interviews. He lives in a world where Michigan is primarily black and Texas is primarily white. He lives in 1969.
Mr. Mathews fighting in the wrong field, and I don’t know why anyone would let him take them there. Even the blacks are fleeing Detroit in droves. They are heading to places all over the US where there is still freedom, and the data shows this. Why is Michigan being characterized as “black?” THAT is ignorant and racist. And who is the person who is the new “spokesman” for Detroit? Eminem? Isn’t he a white guy who cleans out closets and dubs his videos in Arabic?
The problem is that once again, MSBC engages in misogyny by brow beating a woman. The likes of Larry O’Donnell and Chris Mathews flourish in browbeating women of all color. I don’t know the woman in this clip, or why she was on this show, but she clearly has never had to push back in Illinois politics. Here is how the “push back” should have gone.
When Mathews started going on and on about Obama being raised by his white mother raising him, she should have come back with “So why did Obama write “Dreams of my Father” rather than “Dreams of my Mother?” Why did Obama write about the “coil of rage” he harbors against his mother and all white people because of her? Who is the racist? Obama who harbors a coil of rage, not Newt Gingrich! I don’t see any books by Newt Gingrich talking about his rage against white people, black people, or any other people. I do see Newt Gingrich standing up for Free Market Principles. This is consistent with Mr. Alford of the Black Chamber of Commerce, Alan Keyes, US Ambassador, and Herman Cain, formerly of the Federal Reserve. How is that racist?
Disagreeing with Mr. Obama on how to answer the three fundamental questions of economic organization does not make one a racist. Why is it that people cannot disagree with Mr. Obama’s white half? Why must all disagreements be with Mr. Obama’s black half? Why is Mr. Obama a racist?
Is not the mere suggestion that the comparison of Michigan versus Texas implied racism on Chris Mathew’s part? Yes, Chris Mathews is a racist. As a Hispanic, I was very offended by Mathews remarks. Mathews clearly was attempting to slam the millions of Hispanics in Texas by implying they were inferior to the Arabs who have taken over in Michigan. I was furious that Chris Mathews would use antiquated stereotypes of these two regions to imply Newt Gingrich is a racist, attempt to frame the When was the last time Chris Mathews was in Texas? Or Michigan? How antiquated of MATHEWS to suggest that this is about “Black v White.” Does he think this is 1969 or 2011?
The battle ground coming before our nation is not black versus white. Both populations are in decline and are no longer the dominant cultural force. The dominant cultural force in Michigan is Arabic, not black or white. The dominant cultural force in Texas is Hispanic, not black or white. Has Chris Mathews left his studio since 1969? Black versus White? That is like talking about the battle of Vicksberg in discussing our battle strategy in Afghanistan. It is a fundamentally outdated way of examining the conflicts on the streets of America today. The battle today in the US is more like the battle that Queen Isabella fought in her nation. Both blacks and whites are fighting against the entrenchment of Sharia law in our nation.
Are the rural black Christian communities in Texas, the Hispanics in Texas somehow less valuable that the Arab communities in Detroit? Who is the racist? Who is the misogynist? It isn’t Newt Gingrich.
Saturday, May 7, 2011
NBC: State Sanctioned Misogynist Lawrence O'Donnell
In recent months, many Americans, such as myself, have become increasingly frustrated with national media coverage. Part of this frustration comes from media topics that are not even being addressed in the stories, or information that isn't even covered, giving rise to citizen journalist outlets. The other aspect of this media bias is the treatment of media personalities of the people who are being interviewed in the main stream media (MSM). While Sarah Palin was poorly treated by the media, that was mild compared to today's media..
The most recent outrage in behavior has been MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell. He seems to take particularly sick delight in the role of Spanish Inquisitor against a variety of "guest victims." His show, Final Re-Write, seems to be inspired by the treatment of the Catholic Church toward Galileo rather than by journalism as it was taught in years gone by. In his interview of Orley Taitz, he interrogated her in a particularly demeaning fashion as he attempt to extract a confession and then threw her off the show when he was unable to intimidate her. In another interview, he pursued the same misogynist tactics against Condolizza Rice. Time and time again, Lawrence O'Donnell completely disrespected her experience, rank, and position and attempted to extract a confession from her that the War in Iraq was a failure. Because Mrs. Rice is an experienced negotiator, she was able to gracefully put Mr. O'Donnell in his place.
Ten years ago, these sort of interrogation tactics against women would have been viewed with great public disdain and outcry. The National Organization of Women would have been marching in the streets, leading boycotts against these media outlets and their sponsors. Yet now, there is silence. In my utter disgust, I wanted to write to the owner of NBC to complain. But who would I be complaining to? I wasn't exactly certain, so I set out to find the facts on who owns NBC, and why their rude treatment is allowed to persist as some kind of facade of journalism. I wanted to try to find out, who is in charge of the show? Who would I protest? Who do I write to? Who is the money behind this bizarre behavior?
As Brian Williams often mentions on the NBC Nightly News, General Electric is the parent company of NBC. Well, that seemed straight forward enough, because General Electric's CEO Jeffrey Immelt was also on President Obama's Economic Recovery Advisory Board. But then I remembered that Jeffrey Immelt was under some kind of Securities and Exchange Commission investigation, and was fined a substantial sum of money. So, I didn't really know if Immelt was still the CEO of GE. Even so, certainly as CEO, Jeffry Immelt had to answer to someone?
Upon closer inspection, I knew I had to find out exactly who Immelt reported to at GE. After all, CEO's are hired and fired too, and there is often a major holder on the board of directors. Sometimes, it is easier to raise issues of sexist and race through major players on the board of directors, or major shareholders, or major debt holders. Amazingly, I found out that General Electric, with its AAA Moody's rating relies substantially on Commercial Paper to run its daily operations. What I found, starting with October of 2008, that the entity that held most of GE's Commerical Paper was the Federal Reserve. Indeed, as recent documents reveal, GE was the main non-bank recipient of Federal Reserve Bail Out Money.
The most recent outrage in behavior has been MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell. He seems to take particularly sick delight in the role of Spanish Inquisitor against a variety of "guest victims." His show, Final Re-Write, seems to be inspired by the treatment of the Catholic Church toward Galileo rather than by journalism as it was taught in years gone by. In his interview of Orley Taitz, he interrogated her in a particularly demeaning fashion as he attempt to extract a confession and then threw her off the show when he was unable to intimidate her. In another interview, he pursued the same misogynist tactics against Condolizza Rice. Time and time again, Lawrence O'Donnell completely disrespected her experience, rank, and position and attempted to extract a confession from her that the War in Iraq was a failure. Because Mrs. Rice is an experienced negotiator, she was able to gracefully put Mr. O'Donnell in his place.
Ten years ago, these sort of interrogation tactics against women would have been viewed with great public disdain and outcry. The National Organization of Women would have been marching in the streets, leading boycotts against these media outlets and their sponsors. Yet now, there is silence. In my utter disgust, I wanted to write to the owner of NBC to complain. But who would I be complaining to? I wasn't exactly certain, so I set out to find the facts on who owns NBC, and why their rude treatment is allowed to persist as some kind of facade of journalism. I wanted to try to find out, who is in charge of the show? Who would I protest? Who do I write to? Who is the money behind this bizarre behavior?
As Brian Williams often mentions on the NBC Nightly News, General Electric is the parent company of NBC. Well, that seemed straight forward enough, because General Electric's CEO Jeffrey Immelt was also on President Obama's Economic Recovery Advisory Board. But then I remembered that Jeffrey Immelt was under some kind of Securities and Exchange Commission investigation, and was fined a substantial sum of money. So, I didn't really know if Immelt was still the CEO of GE. Even so, certainly as CEO, Jeffry Immelt had to answer to someone?
Upon closer inspection, I knew I had to find out exactly who Immelt reported to at GE. After all, CEO's are hired and fired too, and there is often a major holder on the board of directors. Sometimes, it is easier to raise issues of sexist and race through major players on the board of directors, or major shareholders, or major debt holders. Amazingly, I found out that General Electric, with its AAA Moody's rating relies substantially on Commercial Paper to run its daily operations. What I found, starting with October of 2008, that the entity that held most of GE's Commerical Paper was the Federal Reserve. Indeed, as recent documents reveal, GE was the main non-bank recipient of Federal Reserve Bail Out Money.
So, now I am beginning to see the picture. The Federal Reserve owns GE. Jeffry Immelt is the CEO for GE and also works for President Obama. In turn, GE owns NBC and its various cable and internet outlets. So, Jeff Immelt works for both the Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernake through GE and for President Barack Obama through the Economic Recovery and Advisory Board? Since Jeff Immelt also owns NBC through GE, then who is controlling the news? So, I now wonder, is misogyny the policy of the Obama Administration? GE? The Federal Reserve? Is this activity something that is state sanctioned? President Obama, would you like your daughters and your wife treated like that?
Who is controlling the news content? Who is allowing this misogynist treatment to persist on the part of Lawrence O'Donnell? Now I understand what author Craig Smith means when he calls America's media turning into CHINA-STYLE “CRONY CAPITALISM." For Tienaman Square, turn on Lawrence O'Donnell. For news you can trust, you'll have to go somewhere else.
Thursday, April 28, 2011
Mr. President, Your 8 Layers Are Showing
All the world was so busy with the long form birth certificate released by President Obama, that they failed to grasp the scope of Ben Bernake's comments. Yes, just hours before the first Press Conference held by the Federal Reserve in this century, the White House decided to participate in the dog and pony show of the birth certificate. Well, since our dollar is almost worthless, how valuable is that birth certificate? It has certainly been a diversion!
As it turns out, the veracity of the document is important for an economist to consider, because economic analysis relies on the underlying data being valid and knowledge of the economic system essential. If someone is willing to be untruthful about their personal particulars, then what will stop them from publishing bogus data? I learned early on in estimating time series data to look at the regime. If the regime is dishonest, they have probably been less than honest in the data. If the data is bogus, any economic analysis gleaned from them is bogus. Many an economist has been mislead by bogus data in economic forecasts of third world countries, and occasionally developed ones. That is why so many economists are hot on the issue; it determines the ability of the data and the models to be valid and functional.
But beyond economic analysis, there is a more dangerous reason to consider the document's veracity. It puts the foundation document of our economic system, the Constitution, at great peril. If the Constitution is not upheld, then any economic model predicated on it cannot be relied upon to provide accurate forecasts and results. All economic mathematical models assume that economic agents have the right to hold property and the liberty to make choices. Without these concepts, neither the Keynesian, the Classical, or the Neo-classical model of economics will be useful. When liberty is jeopardized, choice sets for economic agents are constrained, and there is no way to truly quantify these dangers in the parlance of Lagrangian multipliers. Even worse, it puts our system of government in jeopardy. For these three reasons, it is noteworthy for economist to wander into the area of the alleged Long Form Birth Certificate, or LFBC, released by the White House.
For those unfamiliar with the past two days, there has been quite a bit of analysis published already. The best case, based on Photoshop, why the document is a fake, can be found here. Others have compared the Obama LFBC released with the one made available by Susan Nordyke, a twin born hours after Barack Obama. There are many differences between his document and the Susan Nordyke's real LFBC. A comparison can be found here. Without wandering into the technical aspects of desktop publishing and layers, here are the reasons why the birth certificate is a forgery and suggests a rather poor researcher manufactured the document.
First, the name of the hospital listed is simply wrong. At the official web site for Kapiolani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital and according to the information there, the name of the hospital at the time of Obama's birth should have been Kauikeolani Children's Hospital. According to the web site the name didn't change to Kapiolani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital until Kauikeolani Children's Hospital merged with Kapi‘olani Maternity Home in 1978. But, we can give them the benefit of the doubt here.
Second problem is very troublesome for Democrats: the doctor is wrong. Many folks who defended Obama's Hawaiian birth did so based on the word of Dr. Rodney West. Dr. West, who died in February of 2011, was the basis of confidence in the story that Obama was born in the U.S. Yet the birth certificate released by the Obama Administration now shows that Dr. Sinclair delivered Obama, much to the delight of his Iowa widow. While this may be a great thing for Obama when he campaigns in Iowa, it must be an embarrassment for Democratic operatives who introduced Dr. West in 2008!
Third, they screwed up the numbering on the certificate. The Nordyke Twins were born after Obama in the same hospital. Yet, amazingly, their registration numbers precede the number given Obama. This was very careless on the part of the forgers.
Fourth, the date in box 20 clearly has the "number 1" written in it. I guess they couldn't find a typewriter at the Smithsonian to type the letter "l" that was commonly used for the number one during the manual typewriter era of the early 1960s. Or maybe they simply lacked the patience to line up the letter in the carriage and decided it was easier to use a pencil to in the number one.
Fifth, the more amusing error, is the registrar's signature in box 21. What kind of registrar can't spell their own name? Note to forgers listed on one website: It is spelled “Ukulele.”
Sixth, there are clearly irregularities regarding the safety paper. The lines along the left hand side appear to reflect a fold, like the document came from a bound volume. However, the safety paper does not follow the curve. This and other irregularities are discussed on here.
Seventh, the race is wrong. During the 1960s, the term Negro was used as a race. Back then, the term African was reserved for those born on the continent of Africa. Oh, wait, is that what this document suggests after all?
Worse, the stamp at the bottom of the document tells it all. The document is not a birth certificate. It is an abstract. Read the stamp at the bottom, it is very clear. It is not the actual LFBC.
For those who want to suggest I am a racist, then you don't know me. For what it is worth, the issue of eligibility war originally raised by Senator Obama in regard to Senator John McCain. Indeed, Senator Obama sponsored the SR 511 in the 110th Congress. He is the one who raised the issue and clarified the issue of what constitutes a natural born citizen. After all, the best defense is a good offense. Knowing he did not meet the requirements, he accused McCain of not being qualified. The document is not even a defense of Obama's eligibility; it actually makes the case that he is not natural born based on SR 511. It refutes nothing, and proves he can be bullied by a Casino magnate.
President Obama indeed has earned his place in history. LBJ lied about the Bay of Tonkin. Nixon claimed he was not a crook. Clinton claimed he did not have sex with that woman. Obama has his past. In contrast to Obama, LBJ, Nixon, and Clinton enjoyed some degree of economic security prosperity despite their lack of honesty. President Obama will go down in history as bigger liar than either of these three, with an economy worse than that engineered by either President Carter or Hoover.
Years from now, as my grandchildren pay taxes on this debt, I am certain the name "Obama" will be word of disdain, reserved for occasions when a hammer hits one thumb, or bumps one's shin on a coffee table. To be deceived, people will say they are being "Obama-ed." As he sells our children and our grandchildren into slavery, remember the Congress that could have acted to remove him from office and did not, the Vice President, who could not stay awake to invoke the 25th Amendment, and the Federal Reserve Chairman who ran the printing presses to finance the biggest deficits in American history.
As it turns out, the veracity of the document is important for an economist to consider, because economic analysis relies on the underlying data being valid and knowledge of the economic system essential. If someone is willing to be untruthful about their personal particulars, then what will stop them from publishing bogus data? I learned early on in estimating time series data to look at the regime. If the regime is dishonest, they have probably been less than honest in the data. If the data is bogus, any economic analysis gleaned from them is bogus. Many an economist has been mislead by bogus data in economic forecasts of third world countries, and occasionally developed ones. That is why so many economists are hot on the issue; it determines the ability of the data and the models to be valid and functional.
But beyond economic analysis, there is a more dangerous reason to consider the document's veracity. It puts the foundation document of our economic system, the Constitution, at great peril. If the Constitution is not upheld, then any economic model predicated on it cannot be relied upon to provide accurate forecasts and results. All economic mathematical models assume that economic agents have the right to hold property and the liberty to make choices. Without these concepts, neither the Keynesian, the Classical, or the Neo-classical model of economics will be useful. When liberty is jeopardized, choice sets for economic agents are constrained, and there is no way to truly quantify these dangers in the parlance of Lagrangian multipliers. Even worse, it puts our system of government in jeopardy. For these three reasons, it is noteworthy for economist to wander into the area of the alleged Long Form Birth Certificate, or LFBC, released by the White House.
For those unfamiliar with the past two days, there has been quite a bit of analysis published already. The best case, based on Photoshop, why the document is a fake, can be found here. Others have compared the Obama LFBC released with the one made available by Susan Nordyke, a twin born hours after Barack Obama. There are many differences between his document and the Susan Nordyke's real LFBC. A comparison can be found here. Without wandering into the technical aspects of desktop publishing and layers, here are the reasons why the birth certificate is a forgery and suggests a rather poor researcher manufactured the document.
First, the name of the hospital listed is simply wrong. At the official web site for Kapiolani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital and according to the information there, the name of the hospital at the time of Obama's birth should have been Kauikeolani Children's Hospital. According to the web site the name didn't change to Kapiolani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital until Kauikeolani Children's Hospital merged with Kapi‘olani Maternity Home in 1978. But, we can give them the benefit of the doubt here.
Second problem is very troublesome for Democrats: the doctor is wrong. Many folks who defended Obama's Hawaiian birth did so based on the word of Dr. Rodney West. Dr. West, who died in February of 2011, was the basis of confidence in the story that Obama was born in the U.S. Yet the birth certificate released by the Obama Administration now shows that Dr. Sinclair delivered Obama, much to the delight of his Iowa widow. While this may be a great thing for Obama when he campaigns in Iowa, it must be an embarrassment for Democratic operatives who introduced Dr. West in 2008!
Third, they screwed up the numbering on the certificate. The Nordyke Twins were born after Obama in the same hospital. Yet, amazingly, their registration numbers precede the number given Obama. This was very careless on the part of the forgers.
Fourth, the date in box 20 clearly has the "number 1" written in it. I guess they couldn't find a typewriter at the Smithsonian to type the letter "l" that was commonly used for the number one during the manual typewriter era of the early 1960s. Or maybe they simply lacked the patience to line up the letter in the carriage and decided it was easier to use a pencil to in the number one.
Fifth, the more amusing error, is the registrar's signature in box 21. What kind of registrar can't spell their own name? Note to forgers listed on one website: It is spelled “Ukulele.”
Sixth, there are clearly irregularities regarding the safety paper. The lines along the left hand side appear to reflect a fold, like the document came from a bound volume. However, the safety paper does not follow the curve. This and other irregularities are discussed on here.
Seventh, the race is wrong. During the 1960s, the term Negro was used as a race. Back then, the term African was reserved for those born on the continent of Africa. Oh, wait, is that what this document suggests after all?
Worse, the stamp at the bottom of the document tells it all. The document is not a birth certificate. It is an abstract. Read the stamp at the bottom, it is very clear. It is not the actual LFBC.
For those who want to suggest I am a racist, then you don't know me. For what it is worth, the issue of eligibility war originally raised by Senator Obama in regard to Senator John McCain. Indeed, Senator Obama sponsored the SR 511 in the 110th Congress. He is the one who raised the issue and clarified the issue of what constitutes a natural born citizen. After all, the best defense is a good offense. Knowing he did not meet the requirements, he accused McCain of not being qualified. The document is not even a defense of Obama's eligibility; it actually makes the case that he is not natural born based on SR 511. It refutes nothing, and proves he can be bullied by a Casino magnate.
President Obama indeed has earned his place in history. LBJ lied about the Bay of Tonkin. Nixon claimed he was not a crook. Clinton claimed he did not have sex with that woman. Obama has his past. In contrast to Obama, LBJ, Nixon, and Clinton enjoyed some degree of economic security prosperity despite their lack of honesty. President Obama will go down in history as bigger liar than either of these three, with an economy worse than that engineered by either President Carter or Hoover.
Years from now, as my grandchildren pay taxes on this debt, I am certain the name "Obama" will be word of disdain, reserved for occasions when a hammer hits one thumb, or bumps one's shin on a coffee table. To be deceived, people will say they are being "Obama-ed." As he sells our children and our grandchildren into slavery, remember the Congress that could have acted to remove him from office and did not, the Vice President, who could not stay awake to invoke the 25th Amendment, and the Federal Reserve Chairman who ran the printing presses to finance the biggest deficits in American history.
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
Public Employee Unions in Anchorage Elections
Every once in a while, I can't resist writing on Alaska issues. It would seem that the public employee labor unions are now making an effort to hi-jack the City of Anchorage just as they have in other cities and states across the United States. In this video, you will see a fellow named Dick Traini, Chair of the Anchorage Assembly being introduced as "one of their own."
Salaries for Anchorage's Municipal Government are searchable on the internet. That will definitely be something to keep an eye on over the next year. Thanks to Glen Biegel, the ever vigilant watchdog on Anchorage issues.
Salaries for Anchorage's Municipal Government are searchable on the internet. That will definitely be something to keep an eye on over the next year. Thanks to Glen Biegel, the ever vigilant watchdog on Anchorage issues.
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
While we go bankrupt and build the world, we bail out Portugal?
In case you missed it over the past few days, Standard and Poor has downgraded U.S. Treasuries. Indeed, there can be economic adverse consequences to default. Timothy Geithner wants the debt limit raised for as long as possible, in fact, forever, to avoid that default. After all, there are merely differences in how to take care of elderly and the poor. We all know that evil Republicans will take funds away from the most poor in society, just listen to any Democrat in the current administration.
The problem is that the issues that are causing the default are really manufactured by the Obama Administration. Even as S&P downgrades our debt, the United States, through the IMF, is bailing out Portugal. This is the same IMF (International Monetary Fund) that is attempting to force the United States into raising tax rates on Americans. The IMF said that America needs to make "huge tax increases" to remain viable earlier this month. Now we are bailing out Portugal with them? How is it that there may not be enough to pay our military, our seniors, and pay for education, but we can bail out Portugal?
In addition to the IMF, there is all sort of building programs going on by the United States around the world. Through the US Export-Import Bank, the United States has been engaged in a flurry of investments oversees. Clearly, we have been rebuilding the Iraq economy, at US taxpayer expense. But that isn't all. We are funding oil wells in Brazil and refineries to the tune of billions of dollars in Columbia (see my previous blog). We are building a new billion dollar complex in London (often dubbed the Chrystal Palace) replete with a moat. There is also the new embassy building in Ethiopia, which seems to be quite the hit. Then there is the celebrated Green Embassy in Jakarta that has everyone talking (not). After all, it is just part of our overall 70 buildings we are building around the world for the green embassy project.
Indeed, the only building program going on in the United States is one of resentment toward the Obama administration. Raising the debt ceiling would be fine if it were for building America, but that isn't what is really going on in the budget. We are building every other country but our own. If seniors don't get checks and poor go hungry, it is because of our ambitious program of international building through off budget agencies like the IMF and the Export-Import bank and the U.S. State Department. It will not be because House Republicans failed. Raise the debt ceiling and taxes for the IMF?
Are you freaking kidding me?
Besides the gargantuan expenditures on Obama Care, the Obama Administration has done everything possible to halt economic activity in the U.S. and erode the tax base. The Obama Administration fights the oil industry at every turn. Indeed, the goal of the current administration, as laid out by candidate Barack Obama, is to let gas prices skyrocket. His program necessarily causes stagflation: rising prices and growing unemployment. Under stagflation, it is increasingly difficult to pay off debt, as every other nations knows. This has created the stage for U.S. default through his "global redistribution" plan.
Call your Congressman and let your voice be heard. If that debt ceiling is raised, shut down the international bail outs and investment. Invest in America, because you know that the Chinese and the Brazilians have. Quite letting internationals run our country. Let's get off the High Speed Bullet Train to Bankruptcy and build our nation.
The problem is that the issues that are causing the default are really manufactured by the Obama Administration. Even as S&P downgrades our debt, the United States, through the IMF, is bailing out Portugal. This is the same IMF (International Monetary Fund) that is attempting to force the United States into raising tax rates on Americans. The IMF said that America needs to make "huge tax increases" to remain viable earlier this month. Now we are bailing out Portugal with them? How is it that there may not be enough to pay our military, our seniors, and pay for education, but we can bail out Portugal?
In addition to the IMF, there is all sort of building programs going on by the United States around the world. Through the US Export-Import Bank, the United States has been engaged in a flurry of investments oversees. Clearly, we have been rebuilding the Iraq economy, at US taxpayer expense. But that isn't all. We are funding oil wells in Brazil and refineries to the tune of billions of dollars in Columbia (see my previous blog). We are building a new billion dollar complex in London (often dubbed the Chrystal Palace) replete with a moat. There is also the new embassy building in Ethiopia, which seems to be quite the hit. Then there is the celebrated Green Embassy in Jakarta that has everyone talking (not). After all, it is just part of our overall 70 buildings we are building around the world for the green embassy project.
Indeed, the only building program going on in the United States is one of resentment toward the Obama administration. Raising the debt ceiling would be fine if it were for building America, but that isn't what is really going on in the budget. We are building every other country but our own. If seniors don't get checks and poor go hungry, it is because of our ambitious program of international building through off budget agencies like the IMF and the Export-Import bank and the U.S. State Department. It will not be because House Republicans failed. Raise the debt ceiling and taxes for the IMF?
Are you freaking kidding me?
Besides the gargantuan expenditures on Obama Care, the Obama Administration has done everything possible to halt economic activity in the U.S. and erode the tax base. The Obama Administration fights the oil industry at every turn. Indeed, the goal of the current administration, as laid out by candidate Barack Obama, is to let gas prices skyrocket. His program necessarily causes stagflation: rising prices and growing unemployment. Under stagflation, it is increasingly difficult to pay off debt, as every other nations knows. This has created the stage for U.S. default through his "global redistribution" plan.
Call your Congressman and let your voice be heard. If that debt ceiling is raised, shut down the international bail outs and investment. Invest in America, because you know that the Chinese and the Brazilians have. Quite letting internationals run our country. Let's get off the High Speed Bullet Train to Bankruptcy and build our nation.
Obama invests in Columbian Oil Refinery while Americans face dire Economy at Home
Did anyone notice that the Obama Administration will be financing an oil refinery in Columbia?
While 2010 was the recovery summer that wasn’t, there is no doubt that the summer of 2011 will be the summer of skooters. Gas prices continue to soar at the pump across the nation, and it seems that the Obama Administration is uninterested in doing much about it. While domestic prices rise at the US Pump, gas prices in Mexico are half of what they are in this country. It has left many to muse jokingly that illegal immigrants from Mexico can come if they bring a barrel of oil with them.
While the American consumer is in sticker shock, oil producing states have economies that lie in shambles because of permitatoriums (slow down in granting permits) by the Obama Administration. Alaska, with a pipeline that once had 2 million barrels of oil roaring through it, is on the brink of shutting down due to a lack of oil. Louisiana, with an economy limping due to the same permitatorium, is unable to drill in the Gulf of Mexico. As Americans watch Cuba, China, and Mexico drill in our Gulf waters, Americans are banned from such activity. Both Alaska and Louisiana could readily change the American economy, but the Obama Administration does nothing but hold up drilling permits. This hold up doesn’t just hurt these two states; it also hurts the American consumer in the pocket book, and hurts our defensive posture around the world.
The Obama Administration’s Oil Policy has been a pretty simply one. It bans US Production and invests in production in other nations. The President went to Brazil to claim we will be their best customer, and is investing US dollars in that endeavor. Where will that oil be refined? It appears to be in Columbia.
The summer of 2010 may be best known for the BP Oil spill, but it was the summer that the Obama Administration rolled out more grants for Africa than in the history of the United States. The summer of 2011 will be the summer of Latin American Development by the Obama Administration. We are building the oil industry in Brazil, even moving oil rigs from the Gulf of Mexico to Argentina. as well as selling military hardware to a Marxist Regime. Now he invests in Columbian Oil refineries while our own oil industry languishes. He is dismantling the US Energy Sector and shipping it overseas, literally, as well as selling them military hardware. The tab is being paid by the American consumer and the American taxpayer.
The summer of 2010 may be best known for the BP Oil spill, but it was the summer that the Obama Administration rolled out more grants for Africa than in the history of the United States. The summer of 2011 will be the summer of Latin American Development by the Obama Administration. We are building the oil industry in Brazil, even moving oil rigs from the Gulf of Mexico to Argentina. as well as selling military hardware to a Marxist Regime. Now he invests in Columbian Oil refineries while our own oil industry languishes. He is dismantling the US Energy Sector and shipping it overseas, literally, as well as selling them military hardware. The tab is being paid by the American consumer and the American taxpayer.
Is it any wonder that the President’s Popularity is waning? You can fool some of the people some of the time, but you can’t fool everyone all of the time. You can’t get re-elected with high prices at the pumps and high rates of inflation. If you think I am wrong, ask Jimmy Carter.
Saturday, March 12, 2011
Support Alaska's Road Commissions and Support HB155
At the present time, Road Service Commissions (RSCs) perform the vast majority of work on Alaska’s roads off the state roads. Like all units of government, they have faced rising costs. Under the present law, every construction job requires RSCs to solicit Davis-Bacon bids for projects over $2,000 per Title 36 (section 36.05.070). This keeps the cost of road projects extremely high. House Bill 155 raises the project size for which Davis-Bacon bids have to be acquired. By raising the minimum project size from $2,000 to $50,000, RSCs can continue to operate effectively and efficiently. This will enable many smaller projects to be undertaken that currently are not because of costs, and help taxpayers get more for their hard earned dollars.
The vast majority of projects undertaken by RSCs range between $2,000 and $90,000. RSCs are Alaska’s most local unit of government, and operate at the subdivision or neighborhood level. They perform road services cheaply, efficiently, with priorities established after considerable input from the local neighborhood. Under House Bill 155, Davis-Bacon wages will apply only to contracts that are over $50,000. This means tax payers get more for smaller projects.
RSCs need your help in supporting HB 155. There is a movement underway to keep Davis-Bacon wages on projects at the $2,000 level. For most RSCs, this greatly raises the cost of providing road services. Many the projects can not be undertaken due to the $2,000 Davis-Bacon requirement. In many instances, costs could force RSCs to fold and hand their authority over to the borough government. If that happens, borough economic planners, not local resident boards, will determine project priorities. HB 155 will help keep RSCs an viable, economic alternative to borough maintenance and preserves the input of neighborhoods over their own road maintenance priorities. It will help taxpayers get more for their hard earned dollars. It is a good piece of legislation.
Please, take a few minutes today to send a POM to the state legislature to support HB155. Please, let your legislators know that is this is a crucial to keeping our RSCs working efficiently and effectively for local residents. To do this, click here in a new window, and create a POM account, and register your opinion today. If you don‘t know what to say, you can cut and paste the information below:
Please support HB155. Projects under $50,000 are too small for the application of the Davis-Bacon wage skill, and erode tax payer dollars. Currently, Davis-Bacon wages have to be applied to projects under $2,000. This greatly increases the cost of projects, and hurts taxpayers. Please support road service areas and support HB 155. Thank you, in advance, for your vote for HB155!
Also you can contact your local Legislative Information Office about HB155. Thank you for taking the time read this blog, post a response, and sharing it with your friends.
The vast majority of projects undertaken by RSCs range between $2,000 and $90,000. RSCs are Alaska’s most local unit of government, and operate at the subdivision or neighborhood level. They perform road services cheaply, efficiently, with priorities established after considerable input from the local neighborhood. Under House Bill 155, Davis-Bacon wages will apply only to contracts that are over $50,000. This means tax payers get more for smaller projects.
RSCs need your help in supporting HB 155. There is a movement underway to keep Davis-Bacon wages on projects at the $2,000 level. For most RSCs, this greatly raises the cost of providing road services. Many the projects can not be undertaken due to the $2,000 Davis-Bacon requirement. In many instances, costs could force RSCs to fold and hand their authority over to the borough government. If that happens, borough economic planners, not local resident boards, will determine project priorities. HB 155 will help keep RSCs an viable, economic alternative to borough maintenance and preserves the input of neighborhoods over their own road maintenance priorities. It will help taxpayers get more for their hard earned dollars. It is a good piece of legislation.
Please, take a few minutes today to send a POM to the state legislature to support HB155. Please, let your legislators know that is this is a crucial to keeping our RSCs working efficiently and effectively for local residents. To do this, click here in a new window, and create a POM account, and register your opinion today. If you don‘t know what to say, you can cut and paste the information below:
Please support HB155. Projects under $50,000 are too small for the application of the Davis-Bacon wage skill, and erode tax payer dollars. Currently, Davis-Bacon wages have to be applied to projects under $2,000. This greatly increases the cost of projects, and hurts taxpayers. Please support road service areas and support HB 155. Thank you, in advance, for your vote for HB155!
Also you can contact your local Legislative Information Office about HB155. Thank you for taking the time read this blog, post a response, and sharing it with your friends.
Friday, March 11, 2011
Parnell's Proposed Tax Cut
For those of you trying to understand the Proposed Parnell Tax Cuts, there is a wonderful little video.
Please take a few minutes to watch it, share it, and act on it.
Please take a few minutes to watch it, share it, and act on it.
Thursday, March 10, 2011
Jesse Jackson: Champion of the Rich
Today on Fox, Megyn Kelly interviewed the Rev. Jesse Jackson on the events in Wisconsin. In case you are not following these events closely, Democratic law makers from Wisconsin have been hiding in Illinois to prevent a vote. After weeks away, the Gov. Scott Walker called for a special session, where Scott Walker’s measure passed. It now waits for a last vote. However, supporters of the unions have now blocked hallways and doorways of the Wisconsin capital in an effort to prevent democratic processes from working. This new effort is being led by the Rev. Jesse Jackson and Michael Moore. Fox New’s Megyn Kelly interviewed Jackson and his involvement in this matter. When asked about the protestors, Rev. Jesse Jackson said:
These people have no home, they lost them. These people have no jobs, they lost them….We support worker rights.
Really Rev. Jackson? I thought this was about the collective bargaining rights of teachers? Rev. Jackson, you have been an excellent champion for the poor. But that is not what is going on in Wisconsin. Are you saying that these teachers lost their homes? Teacher salaries in the state of Wisconsin average $78,000 a year. These teachers are homeless? If a teacher is making $78,000 a year and cannot find a home, then there is a big problem with that teacher’s ability to run their personal finances. Are union dues that high? Are taxes in Wisconsin that high? I am totally shocked that a teacher in Wisconsin would be homeless on that salary!
If teachers in Wisconsin can’t afford to live on $78,000 a year, there needs to be a close examination of the tax structure and union dues. Wisconsin teachers make 1.5 times the average household salary in Wisconsin. If teachers making $78,000 a year are suffering, then just think how much more the average non-teacher in Wisconsin, who makes $52,000! Yes, the average household in Wisconsin makes only $52,000. Who is speaking for them? Oh, yes, the Tea Party. Why isn’t the Rev. Jesse Jackson helping out the average household in Wisconsin, who makes much less that the average teacher? They are the ones who are truly poor!
The Rev. Jackson’s next point was that the Wisconsin legislature, “…ramrodded the vote.” Really? How many weeks have the Democratic law makers vacationed in Illinois? Was there some secret that this was an option? Were they elected to party in Illinois or to represent their citizens in Wisconsin? The whole nation knew what was going on in Wisconsin! How can they possibly claim that this bill was ramrodded?
Rev. Jesse Jackson concluded his interview with “you can’t close plants here.” Rev Jackson, where are the plants that are being closed in Wisconsin? It is the Unions who are calling for shutting down the schools in Wisconsin. Are those the plants you mean? Do you view the schools of Wisconsin as factories? Does the union view schools as factories? Factories of what? Test scores reported by both Rush Limbough and Glenn Beck suggest that whatever they are factories of, it is not education.
These are not factories, these are schools! Factories have to compete in the private sector. Who do Wisconsin’s “factories of education” compete with?
Jesse Jackson, you are on the wrong side. The real poor in Wisconsin is the average household is being taxed to death to pay teacher salaries. Rev. Jackson, there are school bus drivers who make over $100,000 a year, more than some state governors and more than many faculty members in the state of Illinois! Who are you fighting for? Is it for the average Wisconsin resident that makes $52,000? Or the average teacher who makes $78,000?
Collins, Dan. “WI Teacher Salaries in Context,” Piece of Work In Progress February 19th, 2011
http://powip.com/2011/02/wisconsin-teacher-salaries-in-context/
Megyn Kelly, Interview with Rev. Jesse Jackson, 3/10/2011
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=QSA9M9JxjuM
Limbaugh, Rush on Wisconsin Student Test Scores,
http://mediamatters.org/embed/clips/2011/02/23/14172/prn-limbaugh-20110223-witeachers1
These people have no home, they lost them. These people have no jobs, they lost them….We support worker rights.
Really Rev. Jackson? I thought this was about the collective bargaining rights of teachers? Rev. Jackson, you have been an excellent champion for the poor. But that is not what is going on in Wisconsin. Are you saying that these teachers lost their homes? Teacher salaries in the state of Wisconsin average $78,000 a year. These teachers are homeless? If a teacher is making $78,000 a year and cannot find a home, then there is a big problem with that teacher’s ability to run their personal finances. Are union dues that high? Are taxes in Wisconsin that high? I am totally shocked that a teacher in Wisconsin would be homeless on that salary!
If teachers in Wisconsin can’t afford to live on $78,000 a year, there needs to be a close examination of the tax structure and union dues. Wisconsin teachers make 1.5 times the average household salary in Wisconsin. If teachers making $78,000 a year are suffering, then just think how much more the average non-teacher in Wisconsin, who makes $52,000! Yes, the average household in Wisconsin makes only $52,000. Who is speaking for them? Oh, yes, the Tea Party. Why isn’t the Rev. Jesse Jackson helping out the average household in Wisconsin, who makes much less that the average teacher? They are the ones who are truly poor!
The Rev. Jackson’s next point was that the Wisconsin legislature, “…ramrodded the vote.” Really? How many weeks have the Democratic law makers vacationed in Illinois? Was there some secret that this was an option? Were they elected to party in Illinois or to represent their citizens in Wisconsin? The whole nation knew what was going on in Wisconsin! How can they possibly claim that this bill was ramrodded?
Rev. Jesse Jackson concluded his interview with “you can’t close plants here.” Rev Jackson, where are the plants that are being closed in Wisconsin? It is the Unions who are calling for shutting down the schools in Wisconsin. Are those the plants you mean? Do you view the schools of Wisconsin as factories? Does the union view schools as factories? Factories of what? Test scores reported by both Rush Limbough and Glenn Beck suggest that whatever they are factories of, it is not education.
These are not factories, these are schools! Factories have to compete in the private sector. Who do Wisconsin’s “factories of education” compete with?
Jesse Jackson, you are on the wrong side. The real poor in Wisconsin is the average household is being taxed to death to pay teacher salaries. Rev. Jackson, there are school bus drivers who make over $100,000 a year, more than some state governors and more than many faculty members in the state of Illinois! Who are you fighting for? Is it for the average Wisconsin resident that makes $52,000? Or the average teacher who makes $78,000?
Collins, Dan. “WI Teacher Salaries in Context,” Piece of Work In Progress February 19th, 2011
http://powip.com/2011/02/wisconsin-teacher-salaries-in-context/
Megyn Kelly, Interview with Rev. Jesse Jackson, 3/10/2011
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=QSA9M9JxjuM
Limbaugh, Rush on Wisconsin Student Test Scores,
http://mediamatters.org/embed/clips/2011/02/23/14172/prn-limbaugh-20110223-witeachers1
Shame on Illinois!
Law makers from Wisconsin have been in Illinois long enough for Illinois Labor Relations at the University of Illinois to issue a study on Wisconsin teachers. The study claims that Wisconsin teacher salaries have lagged over the past 16 years. How do they proove this? The do so by comparing Wisconsin teacher salary increases with Illinois salary increases. That is bad science and union propaganda at best. It is clear that these law makers have been in Illinois attempting to use the resources of that state to fight against their own people in Wisconsin. Shame on them, and shame on Illinois for being complicit. Shame on the people of Illinois for allowing THEIR tax dollars to be used to interfere in public policy matters in other states.
Collins, Dan. “WI Teacher Salaries in Context,” Piece of Work In Progress February 19th, 2011 http://powip.com/2011/02/wisconsin-teacher-salaries-in-context/http://powip.com/2011/02/wisconsin-teacher-salaries-in-context/
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, “Study: Over 16-year span, Wisconsin teacher salaries lag private sector wages,“ 3/2/2011
http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-03-year-span-wisconsin-teacher-salaries.html
Collins, Dan. “WI Teacher Salaries in Context,” Piece of Work In Progress February 19th, 2011 http://powip.com/2011/02/wisconsin-teacher-salaries-in-context/http://powip.com/2011/02/wisconsin-teacher-salaries-in-context/
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, “Study: Over 16-year span, Wisconsin teacher salaries lag private sector wages,“ 3/2/2011
http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-03-year-span-wisconsin-teacher-salaries.html
Wednesday, March 9, 2011
Everything Used to be ACES
Recently, the Alaska State House Resource Committee passed HB 110 that is aimed at reducing the tax on oil. Currently, Alaskan oil is taxed under the Alaska’s Clear and Equitable Share. It has a key component of triggering a higher tax rate when oil prices rise, known as a progressive component. When it was first enacted, it was aimed at “reclaiming” windfall profits from oil companies. An oil surcharge is imposed is and when the price of oil spikes; depending on the cost of oil, a 25% surcharge tax is imposed at around $56.00 a barrel. The tax rate increases as the price of oil increases.
When ACES was passed, the world was a different place. Back then, high oil prices were viewed as excess profit seeking and downright greed on the part of petroleum companies. Back then, dictators in the Middle East and other places maintained the political stability for oil production in many oil producing nations. In exchange for peace, these dictators often were able to extract tax rates up to 40%. Back then, the President of the US did not use every regulatory trick in the book to prevent production. It actually encouraged domestic oil production. Back then, Alaska could compare its tax rates to foreign countries and keep it lower than Bahrain’s tax, rather than compete with states like North Dakota, Louisiana, and California. Back then, the world was a different place.
Times change, and the number of third world dictators garnering 40% tax rates from oil companies have dwindled. However, so has access to those fields, at least for a time. Extreme political events have created disruptions in the supply of oil; so severe that oil futures have traded recently near $200 a barrel. In 2007, $80.00 a barrel would have been considered outrageous. Today, it would be considered a bargain. Back then, China and India were emerging and their demand for oil was growing. But now, in 2011, they have emerged, and they also have a demand for oil that rival‘s America‘s energy needs. Their demand has created a higher structural component in the demand for oil. The days of $9.00 a barrel for oil are long gone, as are the days of American dominance in the global demand for oil equation.
Once we had presidents that favored private sector activity. Oil companies nationally now face an openly hostile regulatory environment. Moratoriums, permit approval slowdowns (often dubbed permitatoriums), and the creation of new and bizarre regulations from the mind of the current Secretary of the Interior have created a hostile environment for oil companies. Oil companies, such as Shell, have invested millions in the production of wells that it may never recover due to the fear of catastrophic environmental damage on the part of the Secretary of the Interior. Despite the fact that our own nation does not drill, it should be noted that Cuba, China, Malaysia, and Russia have all announced intentions to drill in the Gulf of Mexico. They will not have to face the environmental regulations that American companies have to endure, and will have a clear cost advantage if they are allowed to drill there.
While oil fields outside the US are in a state of chaos, the same cannot be said for oil fields in the United States. Louisiana modified there taxes in 2007; historically their taxes have ran around 12% of value. California moved toward capping their oil tax at a lower rate. Most importantly, North Dakota began an aggressive program to attract oil companies. North Dakota taxes oil at 6.4% or lower on value (depending on well size) and has a 2% tax rate for smaller wells. When combined with their corporate tax rate, a large producer would face less than 15% in taxes. When compared to marginal tax rates that could climb to 75% in Alaska, North Dakota was able to attract investment.
Other things have happened quietly over time. While some like Senator Hollis French tout the success of the ACES program; but things have changed north of Anchorage. As the cost of production began to rise on a per barrel basis, oil companies were quietly disinvesting. British Petroleum cut its budgets by 30%, Shell’s drilling fell from 22 wells to 7 by 2010, and Conoco-Phillips canceled drilling in Alaska (Stone). Businesses related to the oil industry began to see the decline in the demand for their services (Cruz). As oil companies have voted with their feet out of the state, the entire business climate has dampened. Businesses in related industries, and those not so related, have formed lobbying groups to urge the state to cut the tax.
The situation has placed Alaska between a glacier and a hard place. On one hand, the revenue to be gained by keeping ACES is substantial in the short run. Cutting ACES, as proposed under HB110 could result in budgetary shortfalls. Estimates vary, but anywhere from one fourth to one third of Alaska’s current state revenue could be lost by HB110. Sadly, the state doesn’t have sufficient data to know for certain, because data reporting requirements on businesses are minimal. The state presumably has enough in savings to cover a $1.5 billion deficit, for the current year. However, it is unclear what remains for future years. As long as the state squirrels away their econometric modeling procedures like a squirrel hides acorns, we will just have to take their word for whatever estimates they produce.
It is clear that the state needs to cut its tax rate on oil, and probably pretty quickly. The question is how much. No industry would stay in a state when it faces a 75% marginal tax rate. In order to attract investment, the tax cut has to have an effective tax rate has to be lower than other states to attract oil producers. The tax rate has to place a firm at least “tax neutral” with respect to the competing states, and perhaps slightly lower than that to cover the higher cost of doing business in Alaska. At the same time, there are the realities of government. There has to be time for firms to invest, and begin producing for the revenue stream to rise. No one in the state wants to cut taxes and induce a large budget deficits. Taking out the progressivity must be followed with fiscal restraint. This is particularly the case when the state is also proposing large scale projects like the Susitna Dam, or other unforeseen budgetary items. One thing that is certain, passage of HB110, or a similar bill, is needed to revitalize Alaska’s oil production, and caution is needed to minimize any unanticipated state budgetary deficits.
Alaska Department of Revenue, Alaska’s Clear and Equitable Share Report, 1/14/2010.
http://www.revenue.state.ak.us/1-14-10%20ACES%20Status%20Report%20final2%20(3).pdf
Bradner, Tim “House committee approves governor's oil tax change” Journal of Commerce 03/04/2011
http://www.alaskajournal.com/stories/030411/loc_hcago.shtmlhttp://www.alaskajournal.com/stories/030411/loc_hcago.shtml
Bradner, Tim “Murkowski speaks to lawmakers on oil, fuels” Peninsula Clarion 3/8/2011
http://www.peninsulaclarion.com/stories/030811/new_796446978.shtml
Cruz, David, “Oil tax burden creates a ripple effect” Anchorage Daily News, March 7, 2011
http://www.adn.com/2011/03/07/1742106/oil-tax-burden-creates-a-ripple.html
French, Hollis. “My turn: Alaska's Clear and Equitable Share Measure is Successful” Juneau Empire12/10/2009
Hiltzik, Michael “A California Tax on Drilling?” Los Angeles Times July 15, 2009http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jun/15/business/fi-hiltzik15
Joling, Dan “Business coalition urges Alaska oil tax fix” Washington Examiner 02/23/11
http://washingtonexaminer.com/news/2011/02/business-coalition-urges-alaska-oil-tax-fix
Smith, Doug, “HB 110 would spur North Slope Investment,” Anchorage Daily News 2/27/2011
http://www.adn.com/2011/02/27/1726300/hb-110-would-spur-north-slope.html
Stone, Daniel “ A Pipeline Problem in Alaska” Newsweek 10/9/2010
http://www.newsweek.com/2010/10/09/alaska-oil-cos-balk-at-prudhoe-bay-tax-slap.html#http://www.juneauempire.com/stories/121009/opi_534186921.shtml
When ACES was passed, the world was a different place. Back then, high oil prices were viewed as excess profit seeking and downright greed on the part of petroleum companies. Back then, dictators in the Middle East and other places maintained the political stability for oil production in many oil producing nations. In exchange for peace, these dictators often were able to extract tax rates up to 40%. Back then, the President of the US did not use every regulatory trick in the book to prevent production. It actually encouraged domestic oil production. Back then, Alaska could compare its tax rates to foreign countries and keep it lower than Bahrain’s tax, rather than compete with states like North Dakota, Louisiana, and California. Back then, the world was a different place.
Times change, and the number of third world dictators garnering 40% tax rates from oil companies have dwindled. However, so has access to those fields, at least for a time. Extreme political events have created disruptions in the supply of oil; so severe that oil futures have traded recently near $200 a barrel. In 2007, $80.00 a barrel would have been considered outrageous. Today, it would be considered a bargain. Back then, China and India were emerging and their demand for oil was growing. But now, in 2011, they have emerged, and they also have a demand for oil that rival‘s America‘s energy needs. Their demand has created a higher structural component in the demand for oil. The days of $9.00 a barrel for oil are long gone, as are the days of American dominance in the global demand for oil equation.
Once we had presidents that favored private sector activity. Oil companies nationally now face an openly hostile regulatory environment. Moratoriums, permit approval slowdowns (often dubbed permitatoriums), and the creation of new and bizarre regulations from the mind of the current Secretary of the Interior have created a hostile environment for oil companies. Oil companies, such as Shell, have invested millions in the production of wells that it may never recover due to the fear of catastrophic environmental damage on the part of the Secretary of the Interior. Despite the fact that our own nation does not drill, it should be noted that Cuba, China, Malaysia, and Russia have all announced intentions to drill in the Gulf of Mexico. They will not have to face the environmental regulations that American companies have to endure, and will have a clear cost advantage if they are allowed to drill there.
While oil fields outside the US are in a state of chaos, the same cannot be said for oil fields in the United States. Louisiana modified there taxes in 2007; historically their taxes have ran around 12% of value. California moved toward capping their oil tax at a lower rate. Most importantly, North Dakota began an aggressive program to attract oil companies. North Dakota taxes oil at 6.4% or lower on value (depending on well size) and has a 2% tax rate for smaller wells. When combined with their corporate tax rate, a large producer would face less than 15% in taxes. When compared to marginal tax rates that could climb to 75% in Alaska, North Dakota was able to attract investment.
Other things have happened quietly over time. While some like Senator Hollis French tout the success of the ACES program; but things have changed north of Anchorage. As the cost of production began to rise on a per barrel basis, oil companies were quietly disinvesting. British Petroleum cut its budgets by 30%, Shell’s drilling fell from 22 wells to 7 by 2010, and Conoco-Phillips canceled drilling in Alaska (Stone). Businesses related to the oil industry began to see the decline in the demand for their services (Cruz). As oil companies have voted with their feet out of the state, the entire business climate has dampened. Businesses in related industries, and those not so related, have formed lobbying groups to urge the state to cut the tax.
The situation has placed Alaska between a glacier and a hard place. On one hand, the revenue to be gained by keeping ACES is substantial in the short run. Cutting ACES, as proposed under HB110 could result in budgetary shortfalls. Estimates vary, but anywhere from one fourth to one third of Alaska’s current state revenue could be lost by HB110. Sadly, the state doesn’t have sufficient data to know for certain, because data reporting requirements on businesses are minimal. The state presumably has enough in savings to cover a $1.5 billion deficit, for the current year. However, it is unclear what remains for future years. As long as the state squirrels away their econometric modeling procedures like a squirrel hides acorns, we will just have to take their word for whatever estimates they produce.
It is clear that the state needs to cut its tax rate on oil, and probably pretty quickly. The question is how much. No industry would stay in a state when it faces a 75% marginal tax rate. In order to attract investment, the tax cut has to have an effective tax rate has to be lower than other states to attract oil producers. The tax rate has to place a firm at least “tax neutral” with respect to the competing states, and perhaps slightly lower than that to cover the higher cost of doing business in Alaska. At the same time, there are the realities of government. There has to be time for firms to invest, and begin producing for the revenue stream to rise. No one in the state wants to cut taxes and induce a large budget deficits. Taking out the progressivity must be followed with fiscal restraint. This is particularly the case when the state is also proposing large scale projects like the Susitna Dam, or other unforeseen budgetary items. One thing that is certain, passage of HB110, or a similar bill, is needed to revitalize Alaska’s oil production, and caution is needed to minimize any unanticipated state budgetary deficits.
Alaska Department of Revenue, Alaska’s Clear and Equitable Share Report, 1/14/2010.
http://www.revenue.state.ak.us/1-14-10%20ACES%20Status%20Report%20final2%20(3).pdf
Bradner, Tim “House committee approves governor's oil tax change” Journal of Commerce 03/04/2011
http://www.alaskajournal.com/stories/030411/loc_hcago.shtmlhttp://www.alaskajournal.com/stories/030411/loc_hcago.shtml
Bradner, Tim “Murkowski speaks to lawmakers on oil, fuels” Peninsula Clarion 3/8/2011
http://www.peninsulaclarion.com/stories/030811/new_796446978.shtml
Cruz, David, “Oil tax burden creates a ripple effect” Anchorage Daily News, March 7, 2011
http://www.adn.com/2011/03/07/1742106/oil-tax-burden-creates-a-ripple.html
French, Hollis. “My turn: Alaska's Clear and Equitable Share Measure is Successful” Juneau Empire12/10/2009
Hiltzik, Michael “A California Tax on Drilling?” Los Angeles Times July 15, 2009http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jun/15/business/fi-hiltzik15
Joling, Dan “Business coalition urges Alaska oil tax fix” Washington Examiner 02/23/11
http://washingtonexaminer.com/news/2011/02/business-coalition-urges-alaska-oil-tax-fix
Smith, Doug, “HB 110 would spur North Slope Investment,” Anchorage Daily News 2/27/2011
http://www.adn.com/2011/02/27/1726300/hb-110-would-spur-north-slope.html
Stone, Daniel “ A Pipeline Problem in Alaska” Newsweek 10/9/2010
http://www.newsweek.com/2010/10/09/alaska-oil-cos-balk-at-prudhoe-bay-tax-slap.html#http://www.juneauempire.com/stories/121009/opi_534186921.shtml
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)